Piec­ing to­gether the Dunphy case

The Labradorian - - EDITORIAL - (Ret) Capt. Wil­fred Bartlett Green Bay South

On Fri­day, April 3, 2015, Min­is­ter Sandy Collins tweeted, I am rid­ing around with the Pre­mier lis­ten­ing to mu­sic by Sher­man Downey, “Sun in Your Eyes”. That set off a chain of events. Don­ald Dunphy, an in­jured worker on Work­ers Com­pen­sa­tion, not get­ting enough sup­port to pro­vide him with the ba­sic needs, sent out a tweet - one of many over the years.

On Good Fri­day, April 3, 2015, Donna Ivey, in the Premiers’ Of­fice, thought it was some­thing of great con­cern, con­tacted RNC Const. Joe Smyth, a body­guard to the then Pre­mier Davis, who in turn de­cided he would go to Mitchell’s Brook to con­front Mr. Dunphy, for what rea­son no one can fig­ure out. Smyth did not have the ad­dress of Don­ald Dunphy so he con­tacted the Work­ers Com­pen­sa­tion and the per­son Thomas Ma­honey pro­vided the ad­dress. This chain of events caused the un­timely death of Dunphy by Smyth, just two days later on Easter Sun­day, April 5, 2015.

RCMP con­duct­ing the in­ves­ti­ga­tion into this in­ci­dent took a long time and would not re­lease any de­tails and the peo­ple of this prov­ince felt that there was a cover up, es­pe­cially af­ter Smyth was cleared of all wrong do­ings and never charged.

Jus­tice Min­is­ter, An­drew Par­sons, un­der a great deal of pres­sure from the gen­eral pub­lic, calls an in­quiry into the death of Dunphy be­cause no one can un­der­stand why Smyth went to see Dunphy.

The Com­mis­sion of In­quiry re­spect­ing the death of Dunphy started on Jan­uary 9, 2017 un­der the di­rec­tion Judge Leo Barry, as I have been in­ter­ested in this mis­car­riage of jus­tice from day one, I de­cided to spend some time at the hear­ing to try and un­der­stand why.

First up to give state­ment was Dunphy’s daugh­ter, Meghan, who was raised by her fa­ther af­ter her mother died at age three. She de­scribed her dad as funny, sar­cas­tic, talk to any­one, opin­ion­ated, vo­cal and that her dad had a stick with tape on one end, al­ways stuck up on the wall by his chair for pro­tec­tion, which is the fo­cus of much at­ten­tion and is on dis­play along with the ri­fle as ev­i­dence. A man’s home is his cas­tle and has ev­ery right to pro­tect it.

My ob­ser­va­tion was that every­one in at­ten­dance was very im­pressed with her state­ment and the way she han­dled her­self in a very dif­fi­cult task, it speaks well of the way her fa­ther raised her.

Next up was Ms. Ivey and then Mr. Ma­honey both stated if they had to do it all over again they would do the same, in other words no re­morse.

What I saw in the first week of the in­quiry re­spect­ing the death of Dunphy is that all par­ties rep­re­sent­ing the law agen­cies were try­ing to paint Dunphy a per­son liv­ing in squalor, too many cats in the house, full of garbage, a per­son with a tem­per who ex­pressed his opin­ions on Open Line and Twit­ter. But why are the law agen­cies us­ing this as a jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for Smyth do­ing what he did on that fa­tal day. Smyth de­cided to go to Dunphy’s house by him­self, af­ter re­fus­ing help from the RCMP in Holy­rood,

I do not know why in CBS the en­force­ment of­fi­cer for the town went to talk to a lady about chick­ens, he en­listed the help of two RNC Of­fi­cers.

Does the RNC con­sider a lady with chick­ens more dan­ger­ous than Dunphy, who Smyth and Ivey por­trayed as a dan­ger­ous per­son?

On the week of Jan­uary 16, 2017, Smyth giv­ing tes­ti­mony stated he was in the house 15 min­utes be­fore he shot Dunphy.

When Smyth en­tered the house and in the time there,

there was no sign of a ri­fle, yet when his eyes dropped for a cou­ple of sec­onds, Dunphy, an in­jured man who could not move very fast, was able to re­trieve a gun and point it at him and when ques­tioned where the gun came from, didn’t know, might have been on the floor cov­ered in garbage. It’s strange that Dunphy would have a gun for pro­tec­tion on the floor cov­ered in garbage. A 22 ri­fle (is ap­prox. 40 inches long) a large ob­ject to con­ceal, that a trained of­fi­cer could not have ob­served, be­ing that he spent the en­tire time in the house within five to seven feet from Mr. Dunphy.

I would have to say the three days I watched Smyth be­ing ques­tioned by the Com­mis­sion Lawyer, San­dra Chay­tor, very in­trigu­ing, some­thing like a spy movie, Smyth kept harp­ing about the con­di­tion of Dunphy’s house in dis­re­pair, un­tidy, dirty and in­sects, which he later called (car­pen­ters). Car­pen­ters are not dirty in­sects, they are crea­tures that like the shade and damp­ness and are around many homes, in­clud­ing mine. What the con­di­tion of the house has to do with Dunphy’s death is not clear, it was very hard to get clear an­swers from Smyth, his favourite words was “I don’t re­call, I think so, might have”. Smyth in my opin­ion ap­peared to be well re­hearsed and a good ac­tor.

I have come to the con­clu­sion that both men said things that up­set each other and as both men be­came angry and I be­lieve with Smyth’s back- ground, he re­acted the way he did and with­out think­ing fired four bul­lets into Dunphy, which re­sulted in his death.

If things had hap­pened as Smyth said, him be­ing very close to Dunphy and the door at all times, if the gun ap­peared as Smyth stated then he had two op­tions: re­move the gun from Dunphy or leave the house.

The fact that he did nei­ther, leaves his story very ques­tion­able, as I am writ­ing this Smyth will be on the stand again on Jan­uary 23, 2017 and it is bound to be in­ter­est­ing when ques­tioned by Dunphy’s lawyers. As this story is not over, I will be ex­press­ing more of my opin­ions later if the me­dia will al­low.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.